4.) There will be a limited amount of coins that can be minted using certificate mining (however this will be stretched out over a very long period of time, and will be practical for encouraging computational research far into the future). If we implement a Proof-Of-Stake model, then we will see some form of interest, which will be rate-limited, but not limited to an actual final quantity. Hopefully that makes sense, let me know if you'd like me to clarify that one.
Thank you for your answers. I have some follow up questions regarding this point.
Why put a limit on the amount of coin to be minted using the certificate mining? I understand it will be stretch over a very long time but why have the limit in the first place? Why not make it rate-limited somehow without a limited final quantity? Having it finite means that there will be a point in time in the future that would deem certificate mining unprofitable and people, being financially incentivized, will move from it to more profitable venues. Be it 10 days from now or 10 million years from now, that point in time will come and people will move away. Could you please elaborate more on the decisions to set a limit on coin mined with certificate mining and the thought process behind them ?
Thank you
Yeah, this part isn't actually set in stone, so if other people have input on this, don't be shy! Had a discussion with Cygnus and Cujo about this last night.
I'm thinking the best path might be a compromise between people wanting a set-limit system and an actual currency's behavior. Bitcoin and almost every other cryptocurrency has some finite limit to it's mintage, attractive to investors as it is scarce, similar to a commodity. On the other side, fiat currencies are designed in such a way that their mintage is based on a lot of factors including population, and tend to become less valuable over time, per unit. As a result, a compromise would be a very long mintage schedule with an extremely gradual decline, so the coin is still generated at a predictable rate, but is still limited in supply in a given period of time.
Just my 2 cents... I do think a coin that follows a very small inflationary model is a good idea but only to the extent that it is slightly higher than what is needed to offset coins that will get lost via people losing interest, losing their hard drive with no backups, or forgetting their pass phrase etc. I have no idea how to estimate what the natural deflation rate is but I wouldn't want to see growth being much higher than the best guess.
My biggest concern as I've mentioned before is coin utilization. If we don't find ways to actually use CureCoin, the coin is going to die no matter what its features. People need to be able to use it and right now there is nothing to use it for. That is the number one problem in my view. Of course we can use it for speculation but that can be done with a thousand other coins as well. We need real uses for CureCoin.
Maybe when CC 2.0 is released the devs can approach Moolah and others to see if they have an interest in working with the coin. It would seem to fit in well with their mindset and could possibly bring in the Dogecoin community, but I don't think they would be interested under the current structure. CC 2.0 should alleviate many concerns that would come up. I would love to find a way to introduce CureCoin to the Dogecoin crowd. Most members of the Dogecoin community can't mine anymore since the implementation of AuxPoW due to the soaring difficultly. It would be nice to get a few over here and create a cross community if possible. If we could find a way to tap into the DOGE community I think CureCoin's demand would skyrocket.
It appears I have veered off topic a bit from the original quote so I guess I put in 4 cents instead of my 2 cents.
